Britain after Brexit
London and Brussels talked tough this week as they set out their negotiating positions for next month’s trade negotiations. Boris Johnson insisted he was aiming for a comprehensive Canada-style deal, with zero or minimal tariffs or quotas, that would leave Britain in full control of its laws, but said he was willing to fall back on a bare-bones Australia-style deal if necessary. There was no need, he argued, for a new treaty tying the UK to EU rules on state aid, workers’ rights and the environment, because Britain was already committed to matching, and in many cases exceeding, EU standards. But Brussels warned that the UK would not secure a full trade deal unless it agreed to follow most EU rules, defer to European judges and allow continued access to its fishing waters.
The opening salvos of the trade talks followed the UK’s formal departure from the bloc last week, an occasion marked by both celebrations and mourning. In an online address to the nation, Johnson acknowledged that the event would have caused some a “sense of anxiety and loss”, but said it offered a “moment of real national renewal and change”.
What the editorials said
“We know it’s only their opening gambit,” said The Sun, but still, the EU’s demands are ludicrous. Is it really expecting a newly independent Britain meekly to agree to follow EU rules and court judgments, and sign over its fishing rights? Brussels seems to think that because we used to be an EU member, we must continue to act like one, and “agree in perpetuity to remain no more competitive than our sclerotic neighbours”, said The Sunday Telegraph. “Why on earth would any sovereign state agree to that? We left for a reason – to be free and to exploit the opportunities that accompany that freedom.”
You can’t blame the EU for wanting to tie the UK to tougher “level playing field” provisions than it agreed with Canada, said the FT. As a major trade partner on its doorstep, we pose a bigger threat when it comes to unfair competition. Johnson may insist that he has no intention of undermining environmental and social protections, but “trust is low”. The trade-off at the heart of Brexit remains the same as ever, said The Observer. The more we diverge from the EU, the less seamless access we’ll enjoy to its markets. Brexiters must accept that the UK does not have the economic clout “to dictate its own terms of trade to the rest of the world”.
What the commentators said
So much for the hope that once Johnson was in No. 10, with a solid majority, “prudence would prevail”, said Polly Toynbee in The Guardian. Instead, he has made the same mistake Theresa May did in her Lancaster House speech, by building a barrier of “red lines that will block his freedom of manoeuvre”. The suspicion must be that he is seeking to ramp up anti-EU feeling to distract voters from the grim economic consequences of Brexit, and his failure to deliver nationwide renewal. Even if the UK secures a zero-tariffs, zero-quotas trade deal, our economy will suffer, said David Gauke on Conservative Home. Such a deal would be great for the EU, which exports lots of goods here, but less so for us, as our economy is based on services.
Many diehard Remainers seem to have transitioned from fearing Brexit to actively hoping it “will prove the catalyst for national catastrophe”, said Dan Hodges in The Mail on Sunday. They crave “Armageddon” because it’s the only way they can be proved right. Lord Adonis has already penned an article for The New European entitled: “The case for rejoining the EU is growing.” Alastair Campbell, meanwhile, has declared that he will refuse to accept commemorative 50p Brexit coins, should shopkeepers give him any in his change. And to think that it was once Leavers who were caricatured as “fruitcakes and loonies”.
For the next year, we’ll be in a “transitional limbo”, said Jeremy Warner in The Daily Telegraph. As for what will happen after that, it’s hard to tell. Most of the UK’s economic weaknesses – including the North-South divide, poor productivity levels and shortcomings in investment and educational achievement – have “little or nothing” to do with the EU. There may indeed turn out to be “some upside in the nimbler, more adaptive approach” that is possible once we’re less constrained by EU rules, but public policy tends to have a very limited impact as an agent of change. The real hope is that Brexit simply acts as “a sort of wake-up call on problems and deficiencies that have long been left festering and unaddressed. After Brexit, there will be no more excuses, nowhere left to hide. It’s compete or die.”
What next?
Talks between Britain and the EU are expected formally to commence on 3 March. A summit will assess progress in June, when the UK will have its last opportunity to request an extension to the transition period, although Johnson has ruled that out.
A British MP and his German counterpart have called for a post-Brexit “treaty of friendship” between the nations, to enshrine joint security goals as well as common science projects and exchanges between schools and universities. The idea is an early instance of the expected “bilateralisation” of ties, says The Times, as EU states seek to forge customised relationships with London in keeping with their individual interests.